EGAN v. AMERICAN AIRLINES

Elizabeth Anna EGAN and John H. Seiter as Administrators of the Estate of Eileen M. Seiter, Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant

The opinion of the court was delivered by: RAYFIEL

On February 3, 1959, Eileen M. Seiter, a resident of the County of Kings, City and State of New York, was a passenger on an aircraft owned and operated by the defendant, then on a flight from Midway Airport in Chicago, Illinois, to La Guardia Airport in Queens County, New York. On its approach thereto the aircraft crashed into the East River, causing the death of Mrs. Seiter and other passengers aboard.

On April 27, 1959 the Surrogate of kings County issued Letters of Administration on her estate to her mother, Elizabeth Anna Egan, and her husband John H. Seiter, both of whom were residents of the State of New York.

On July 22, 1959 the complaint herein was filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court, and on July 23, 1959 the summons and complaint were served on the defendant, which served its answer on August 12, 1959 and filed the same in the office of the Clerk on August 13, 1959.

The complaint states a claim for damages for the wrongful death of Mrs. Seiter. Jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship. The complaint alleges that the decedent was a resident of Kings County and that the defendant 'was and now is a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, and conducts business in the City and State of New York, County of New York.'

When the answer was served and filed the defendant, acting pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, offered to allow judgment to be taken against it in the sum of $ 8,300.

In June 1962, almost three years after the commencement of this action, the defendant made this motion to dismiss the complaint 'on the grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action because of the lack of a diversity of citizenship between the parties hereto.' After several adjournments the motion was argued on September 26, 1962.

The defendant admits that it was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, but contends that it has its principal place of business in New York City and, as provided by Section 1332(c) of Title 28 U.S.Code, is also a citizen of the State of New York. Consequently, it points out, there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties and this Court has no jurisdiction of the action.

The defendant is a major air carrier, operating routes throughout the United States and various foreign countries pursuant to authority granted it by the Civil Aeronautics Board. Its executive offices are located in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, where its President, Treasurer, Controller and twenty-eight Vice-Presidents in charge of various departments make their headquarters. In addition to its said executive offices it maintains Flight Operations offices at La Guardia Airport in Flushing, Queens County, new York City, in charge of a Vice-President stationed there. At the time of the accident 5,775 of its 21,555 employees were employed in New York State.

The plaintiffs deny that the defendant's principal place of business is in New York. They argue that the major portion of its activities are conducted outside of the State of New York. Attached to their memorandum is a 'Schedule of Factors Which Reflect the Major Activities and Situs of Operations by State', of the defendant in 1959. It contains an analysis of ten factors in the operation of the airline and shows that New York leads in only one, namely, 'Station Headcount', whereas California leads in three: 'Revenue Passenger Miles', 'Land and Buildings', and 'Originating Receipts', Texas in three: 'Certified Route Mileage', 'Flight Equipment' and 'Operating Expenses', and Oklahoma in three: 'Maintenance and Engineering Equipment', 'Material and Supplies Inventory' and 'Overhauling.'

They contend that the Senate Report of its consideration of Subsection (c) of Section 1332 of Title 28 U.S.Code, clearly indicates its purpose and intent. The Report (U.S.Code Congressional and Administrative News, 85th Congress, Second Session, 1958, Vol. 2 p. 3102) reads in part as follows:

'Because of these circumstances, and others, the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended that the law be amended so that a corporation shall be regarded not only as a citizen of the State of its incorporation but also as a citizen of the State in which it maintains its principal place of business. This will eliminate those corporations doing a local business with a foreign charter but will not eliminate those corporations which do business over a large number of States, such as the railroads, insurance companies, and other corporations whose businesses are not localized in one particular State. Even such a corporation, however, would be regarded as a citizen of that one of the States in which was located its principal place of business.'

'Where a corporation is engaged in multistate activities, with offices, facilities or plants in various states, the issue of the location of its principal place of business cannot be resolved by fragmentation of its activities at specific places. It is not answered by a separation of corporate activity into component parts. The issue must be resolved on an over-all basis. It is governed by the totality of corporate activity at a given place, which, to ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.